<p>
</p>
<p>In the given “anomaly,” strength of academic record is NEGATIVELY correlated with acceptance. Explain why students with higher GPAs and SATs would make a weaker case for “advocacy.” We’re not talking about one or two isolated students, but an entire band of students: “ALL (11) of the students higher than this cluster(GPAs 4.2-4.5, ACTs >31) got deferred (not rejected).”</p>
<p>That’s fine. Don’t believe me. : )</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If Yale and Princeton are not above yield protection, why would Tufts be? This is why I asked the Tufts admissions officer for a graphical representation (similar to the ones displayed in the paper) to prove, once and for all, that either Tufts does or does not practice yield protection.</p>
<p>I don’t know that results from a single school actually are all that highly statistically significant, vs. the broad picture actually. Asssuming for the sake of argument that the stated results are even true. The Naviance data at my son’s school did not show the suggested pattern,to the best of my recollection.</p>
<p>I imagine the U has all sorts of data for their internal use, but if they do not publish it externally as a policy matter (and few schools do) then it would be hard to imagine someone there has authorization to provide it to some anonymous internet persona: current student, parent, alumnus, non-applicant teenager with an attitude, whoever.</p>
<p>Besides, where holistic admissions is practiced, numbers alone will not always prefectly predict admissions results. For many schools, I can well imagine that there could be a correlation between stats much higher than typical with : lack of expressed and evident high interest, weaker case made for a match, etc. Which might reduce the admit % of this group below the level which their numbers alone might suggest, even though pure “yield protection” per se was not the cause. These deficits in “squishy” factors might not show up in a graph of stats vs. acceptance rates anyway.</p>
<p>Under the circumstances the best information we can get on this would be anecdotal comments of someone who has had the experience of reading the applications and participating in the review process,as the data on this sort of thing simply isn’t made public and it would be difficult to appropriately quantify the relevant squishy factors anyway.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Given that Tufts draws the majority of students from the Northeast, yield protection (if it exists) may be less prominent there than in other parts of the country where the yield is historically lower.</p>
<p>Dan!</p>
<p>You weren’t kidding when you said that this thread has taken on a “nasty tone”! How do you get rid of the problem? 
How annoying!</p>
<p>I don’t know why infinitetime wants a graph of something so specific. And the fact that a graph doesn’t exist, he defaults that yield protection exists.</p>
<p>Does U of Chicago, Brown, JHU, have these graphs? What? No? EEEK! Then they must practice yield protection too. You can’t conclude they practice yield protection just because they don’t have a graph. Think of it as innocent till proven guilty.</p>
<p>I would also note that a lot of people’s accounts of being rejected or deferred or whatever tend to be anecdotal. Try to find someone in the academia (eg. google scholars, etc.) that mentions tufts syndrome/yield protection.</p>
<p>My take on these students is that they had good scores, sure, but they didn’t go the distance with their essays. It’s like what your high school teachers tell you on AP exams, “you aren’t a number.” Tufts tends to attract a certain type of individual to their community. I don’t believe yield protection exists because the scores of the people accepted and those who decide to go to Tufts are really high. I would also contend that I don’t see the point of any school practicing yield protection since there is no incentive to do so. Seriously, what’s the incentive. Unless you think that students select a college based on their yield, well, that’s just silly.</p>
<p>Tufts scores are high for accepted students. How could they practice yield protection?</p>
<p>Seriously: Median are in the top 6% of their class. SAT scores in the 700’s for all subjects. 91% in the top 10% of their class. Seriously, how is this yield protection?</p>
<p>Buzzer makes an excellent point.
As for infinitetime’s #245 post, I have no idea what you are talking about when you say that yield is historically lower outside the Northeast! How could you possible know such a thing? The fact that a certain percentage of a university’s students come from a particular geographic area says nothing about the yield from that area. If you have this information, let’s see it.</p>
<p>I am anxiously awaiting the expected response postings from “infinitetime” on this thread topic, if only to confirm my suspicion that “he” is actually the same person who used to post as “JohnAdams12” (as well as “johnnybegood” and maybe “hoyasaxa” and “interesting guy”). Once a ■■■■■, always a ■■■■■. So, to those of you who have been engaging “infinitetime” in this forum… you may be arguing with a cipher.</p>
<p>Wow, Just<em>the</em>facts, you’re really grasping at straws. I guess I am not the only person who suspects that Tufts may practice yield protection. The lengths to which some of you Tufts supporters have tried to discredit me instead of my arguments is truly comical. Perhaps you’re afraid that what I say is true?</p>
<p>Like I said: great minds talk about ideas; small minds talk about people.</p>
<p>You still didn’t answer how Tufts practices yield protection if the median accepted student is in the top 6% of their class, 91% of accepted students are in the top 10% of their class, and the average SAT scores for all subjects is in the 700s. Again, how is this yield protection? Note, that’s accepted students–yield protection applies to acceptances. </p>
<p>Yet even the ones who matriculate have an average SAT score in the 700’s for all subjects, 85% are in the top 10% of their class, etc.</p>
<p>So I ask you again since you didn’t answer–how is this yield protection?</p>
<p>^ Excellent, infinitetime. I knew you’d feel compelled to respond to my post as soon as possible. It is, after all, in your nature. Your selective usage of snippets of other people’s postings (many taken out of context), your use of ad hominen tactics, and your smarmy tone as you joust with the various Tufts supporters, all reveal much about your motive and persona. I’ve seen this all before - you simply cannot accept the fact that Tufts does not engage in yield protection. Please tell us, however, when you are finally chased away from the Tufts board… what name will you use when you inevitably attack some other school on that school’s own forum?</p>
<p>infinitetime clearly has not intention of putting forward a truly viable argument or responding analytically to other people’s criticisms.
here’s all of his posts:
<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/search.php?searchid=25755385&pp=15&page=2[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/search.php?searchid=25755385&pp=15&page=2</a></p>
<p>His first post on this thread was his first post ever, and since then he’s posted only on this thread and on what looks to be a similar thread on the UChicago board.</p>
<p>Infinitetime is what is known on the internet as a “■■■■■”:
[Urban</a> Dictionary: ■■■■■](<a href=“Urban Dictionary: ■■■■■]Urban”>Urban Dictionary: ■■■■■)</p>
<p>I suggest you all stop wasting your time arguing against him</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I feel compelled to respond to any posts that are directed at me, since I was clearly expecting them. You responded to me as soon as possible, so what does that mean???</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wrong. I cannot accept things on blind faith. So far no Tufts supporters (including the admissions officer) have been able to provide any good support for their unsubstantiated claims that Tufts does not practice yield protection. In post #232, I presented evidence (from a prospective student’s parent) that strongly suggests yield protection at work. I have yet to hear a plausible explanation for this “anomaly.” (Calling it “normal” doesn’t cut it.) Instead of taking my questions and criticisms so personally, why don’t you Tufts people try to adequately answer them? Or do you have no answers??</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m still waiting for someone’s “viable” argument that Tufts does not practice yield protection. Has anyone responded “analytically” to my criticisms?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Please see post #232 before you ask me again.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s not too farfetched to reason that strength of yield would be inversely proportional to distance away from school.</p>
<p>2 times in a row has infintetime ignored my arguments!</p>
<p>As I said before, anecdotal evidence doesn’t carry much weight given that the average accepted student is really smart. Those may be exceptions but aren’t the rules–outliers, but not the means (even if they are true or not). What is true is that 91% of accepted students are in the top 10% of their class with the median being in the top 6%. And what’s also true is the mean SAT score is all in the 700’s for every subject. Even if this wasn’t the case, there is no incentive for any school to practice yield protection because it’s not included in rankings and no college student picks a college on yield (that would be silly).</p>
<p>So I ask you infinitetime for a THIRD time, how is this yield protection?</p>
<p>At the end of the day what do we weigh? Recent up to date numbers of accepted students that belie any notion of yield protection coupled with someone who works at Tufts admissions or infinitetimes baseless assertions + anecdotal (and unverifiable) claims?</p>
<p>Hmmmmm…doesn’t take much to figure that out.</p>
<p>Yes. #232 is based on anecdotal, and unverifiable evidence. Compare this to REAL data that belies yield protection. So again, how do you explain that 91% of accepted students are in the top 10% of their class? That the median is in the top 6% of their class? That the mean SAT scores are all in the 700’s for every subject.</p>
<p>Seriously, how is that yield protection? Your evidence is another person’s anecdotal evidence which doesn’t mean much when compared to the actual average accepted student’s statistics. Your response is like saying that your uncle told you so and thus, it’s fact.</p>
<p>So I ask you again, how does tufts practice yield protection with those stats?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In the “anomaly” given in post #232, the students who were accepted had high stats. But the students with the HIGHEST stats were ALL waitlisted. </p>
<p>If you think that this is an isolated “anomaly,” think again. Do a search function and you’ll find plenty of weird occurrences. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sure, there is. A higher yield connotes higher (perceived) prestige which attracts higher caliber students.</p>
<p>Are you serious? You still ignore REAL OVERALL DATA. You FAIL to answer the accepted students in which 91% are in the top 10% of their class, the median in the top 6% and the average SAT scores are all in the 700’s for each subject.</p>
<p>Your “incidents” mean nothing when they are matched with the OVERALL students that are accepted. You realize that OVERALL accepted students statistics encompasses any anomalies. Thus, my evidence ASSUMES your “anomalies.”</p>
<p>If yield matters in that sense, Tufts is already attracting kids with good stats. BUT YOU STILL IGNORE THAT FACT. No college kids choose a school based on yield.</p>
<p>At the end, why does it matter when the Tufts kids who are accepted are already really good and those that enroll have good stats? Oh wait, you haven’t answered it. You answer isolated incidents while ignoring THE MEAN. Seriously. Ever heard the phrase “the exception but not the rule?”</p>